patrick.net

Blogs are a very powerful media, and we should take comfort that our form of information and debate is growing in influence and importance.

However...

We should not delude ourselves about the relative size of "us" versus the "sheeple". We are still a very small majority compared to the population of those who buy and sell homes. I assure you many many times more people are influenced by those stupid "nasty wife" ads than by all these blogs combined. This is why, if we want to have the biggest impact possible, we need to remain credible, self-challenge our own community's most objectionable and outrageous claims, and cooperate when the "mainstreamers" pick up on our torrents.

It seems unfair that some jackass talking head gets to have his/her staff dip their big toe into a world we've all worked hard for years to create, and then present it to the masses as if they are the fount of knowledge. But life ain' fair, it just is.

I've been pondering ways we (all the legit bubble bloggers and their blogs represented here) can get more exposure to big media.

Any ideas?

$95k is only about the median income in Santa Clara. So… a lot of people are making a lot more.

If $95K is the median, then half are making more by definition; the amount by which they exceed median is not revealed by this number.

Fyi for burbed, hellboy, etc.

When quoting a previous post, it's helpful to offset it using italics tags:
<i> Quoted text here. </i>
Diplays as: Quoted text here.

This makes your responses much easier to distinguish from the quoted text.

When I interviewed at Sega (I declined the offer, because I would have had to sell my house to rent there), the guy RUNNING the place had not bought yet because prices were so high. This must have been 10 or so years ago. Bay Area prices are unfathomable to me. I don't understand how it works.

I'm more interested in what happens to the places that Californians retire to. I feel like at least I have a chance of understanding those markets.

Greg,

If "inflation" does not match real GDP growth, then growth will be halted in short order. This is why there is "normal inflation", and why it is normal for it to be sustained over very long periods of time. There will continue to be real GDP growth for so long as there are productivity improvements, we continue to replace depreciated capital stock, and there is 0 to positive population growth.

Actually, so much of the alienation we feel is a product of the fact that the MSM never tells our story.

The MSM is dominated by the Boomers. The issues we are experiencing aren't on the radar screens of people at the SF Chronicle or the CBS Evening News.

And it's not just the housing bubble. Most of us are in our late 20's and 30's. Let's see a show of hands: how many of us would like to trade places with a recent graduate. Anyone?

(This is something that we Gen-X'ers will have a duty to change in the future once we are in charge -- we will have to insure that the kids who come behind us have a future and do not have to struggle needlessly like we did.)

The MSM doesn't ever talk about either of these issues. Partly because its principals, 50-something Boomers, can't relate. And partly becuase they just don't give a damn. In the case of housing prices, their interests are actually opposed to ours.

So don't feel bad if you get frustrated by the fact no one talks about the issues that are important to you. Your feelings are normal; the MSM is not reporting them.

>>I’ve been pondering ways we (all the legit bubble bloggers and their blogs represented here) can get more exposure to big media.

>>Any ideas?

Easy. You pointed out how effective the nasty wife commercials are. Take up a collection and advertise on TV.

I vote for a commercial where all the realtors are werewolves and all the mortgage brokers are vampires.

(Randy's comment prompted the above post, meant to cite to him but forgot.)

hellboy says:

Where I live in Sunnyvale and Mt. view areas there still is not that much inventory available. YES, it’s higher than what it was but not materially so to get sellers to panick and lower prices materially.

On the other hand, those places are suburban sprawl to the max, enough to suck your soul dry, places I don't plan to live in anyway.

@SQT,

I agree with your sentiments, but your math is slightly off: you should have pegged specuvestors at "two in five buyers" (40%), not one in four (25%). 25% is soooo 2004 ! :-)

I know one thing for sure, come the next RE crash, SoCal will be much more toast than BA, as it has always been.

I thought we were nuts, until I checked out some Santa Monica homes online, absolutely unjustified. It is not like the entire Santa Monica is nice, there are many half run-down alleys and houses, yet they sell at an even higher price than Pac Heights, or Portola Valley, Saratoga, etc. LA beaches? Give me a break, cold water, polluted, drills in sight, nah, thank you very much.

I second Joe's opinion and LA SFHs in good or bad neighborhoods can see easily another 50-70% crash from here. Plus, you guys are quite overdue for another big bang in the next few years. It could be any time now.

True, if you are thinking of a person just like you but making 4X the loot. But let me assure you most if not all BA jackasses making 200K plus are tapped to the max. Know what goes good with your new 5 series? Well thats a 5K mt bike that you never ride. What goes good with your uncomfortable but stylish danish modern sofa? Well a 50″ flat screen, nevermind that there is nothing to watch.

While I'm sure they waste a lot, it's pretty easy to save when you're pulling in $17K/month. Yuppie DINKs can buy all these toys you've mentioned plus the house and not sweat putting $3-$5K/month into savings. That's fine if trash talking their squandered wealth makes you feel better, just don't fool yourself that they're not sitting pretty.

Of course, once they have kids, they have to keep working to pay the Mortgage.

While I’m sure they waste a lot, it’s pretty easy to save when you’re pulling in $17K/month.

Do you know how much food can cost you?

burbed Says:

I disagree, I agree. I don’t think there will be a crash in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino (e.g. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Apple). There’s just too much money here.

You forget one important ingredient: market psychology. If this whole thing continues downward as predicted, there will be acceleration downward in prices as the mentality of "must buy now or be priced out forever" is replaced by, "investing in RE is a losing proposition." Hence, those with the money you cite would not be so keen to rush and bid up on homes. It's already apparent in the high-end markets as we speak. Just check out inventory, numbers of under contract/pending sales, and you'll see sales in these areas have slowed to a grind.

dagnabit - screwed up the italics again...

The important contention many of you all are forgetting is that this asset bubble, just like every single other asset bubble in history, will collapse under its own weight. External perturbations like rising interest rates, Iran's nukes, Britney Spears abusing her baby, etc are not necessary to collapse a bubble, although they may certainly accelerate the process. It's the fundamental nature of mass hysteria and the herd mentality.

While I’m sure they waste a lot, it’s pretty easy to save when you’re pulling in $17K/month.

FRIFY,

Mmmkay...

First off, 200K/yr is $16,667/month GROSS, not NET. Take-home (after federal/state + FICA, etc.) is probably closer to $10-11k/month.

Secondly, we've already established that 200k is much higher than median/average/typical/whatever HH income, even in the Richer-Than-Thou Bay Area.

Third, with the U.S. savings rate in negative territory (for the first time since the Great Depression) who exactly is saving anything?

@Randy H --

"1) That the money will decrease in spending power even if your investments “beat inflation.”,

Can you explain what you mean here in a bit more detail?"

Yes, what I meant is that, despite the fact that my various investment accounts are increasing at, let's say 6% in a sluggish economy, while you're beating "inflation" (as measured by the nonsensical CPI which backs out food, energy/gas, and housing [in favor of the Rental Equivalency Index]), I can promise that your invested dollars are shrinking in purchasing power.

For example, the Orange County 3/1 house I began renting in July of 2000 was appraised then at $193k, and now with it valued at $650k circa late 2005, $193k wouldn't even be enough for a down payment unless you made $160k (1 HaHa) or thereabouts. You cannot possibly save fast enough.

@FRIFY

"I have until Winter to formulate Plan B. Distract and delay tactics are losing their efficacy. Footrubs and massage coupons might last me to next Spring… "

Obviously, you're in the exact same boat as me. It's awful letting your family down without even knowing it. All this time I was scrimping and saving and eeking the last ounce of life out of my 1994 Geo -- by saving a downpayment rather than jumping into a death-or-glory loan I was unknowingly knocking my family farther and farther behind. The inlaws think I'm a reckless gambler for NOT borrowing 9x my income to buy in. As the siblings were buying more and more condos on more and more exotic loans, it turns out WE were the gamblers, not them. Who knew? They're always asking "What exactly did they teach you in your BSBA program?" Well, they were filling our heads with stodgy, outdated information that used to pass as "financial prudence" (like the whole 20% down, don't take on more than 4x income in debt) but now would be called "overconservatism" at best. Plus, we go to the family functions and it's like a car show, all the sibs and cousins pulling up in the latest Mercedes thanks to their condos, talking real estate into the night. Always reminding me that they can't imagine WHAT I was thinking, and of course I have no defense. It's like the "walk of shame" and we get to do it at least once a week. Like I said, most times I wish she'd just meet somebody who owns a condo, he could sweep her off her feet and that would let me off easy. I could go someplace new, and never mention any of this mess to anybody! Just start fresh and hopefully not be so damn irresponsible the next time around. Screwing yourself is disappointing -- screwing your family is the worst circle of Dante's inferno.

PP,

Do you know how much food can cost you?

I don't want to shock you, but my Sushi intake fell 90% after we had kids. On top of that, Blowfish Sushi has been replaced by Supermarket Sushi.

On the otherhand, Oatmeal and milk expenses have increased 1000% fold...

:-)

I hate to say this, but why the constant attacks on realtors. They may facilitate the process and lie or cheat or otherwise misrepresent the buyer to the seller and vice versa, but really, the problem is the

sellers = insane asking prices, and arrogant insistence that they deserve them

bankers = nutbars allowing people to borrow money on the expectation they can repay later based on appreciation, not income, or more nefariously, hoping for crashes and foreclosures and getting properties back in big money private hands for pennies on the dollar

regulators = maniacs who allowed the fiscal environment to evolve because they feared telling big financial corporations how to operate their lending practices, or didn't want a recession after the dot bomb, and cut the rate to almost 0%

Japanese = carry yen trade, let's face it, in another 10 years the Japanese will own more of America then they did back in the 80s. Just watch...

Seriously, why don't we make fun of sellers more and forget about the realtors?

My $.02.

RW,

That is a single measure of purchasing power parity, not inflation. Inflation is multivariate, and the aggregate is intended to measure the depreciation of the monetary unit against a benchmark basket large enough to include all those variables. The "backing out" problem is very complicated, and you can read about it in many places. It's nothing sinister, just a problem with overloaded uses of CPI.

There have always been depreciating/appreciating assets and even specific deflation/inflation. This is not the same thing as general deflation/inflation from a macroeconomic perspective. If your investments are properly diversified then you are concerned about macro deflation/inflation, not about about specific PPP when measuring your returns.

RW,

I feel for you. However, I hate to sound like a broken record, but hang in there:

For example, the Orange County 3/1 house I began renting in July of 2000 was appraised then at $193k, and now with it valued at $650k circa late 2005, $193k wouldn’t even be enough for a down payment unless you made $160k (1 HaHa) or thereabouts. You cannot possibly save fast enough.

I must point out that you make a major assumption here, which is that the rate of appreciation you observed between 2000-2005 will continue, or at least not diminish significantly. I wouldn't be so sure. Many pockets all over CA are approaching (-)ive YOY appreciation, and that may just be the beginning. Also, not to be too much of a meddler, but it sounds to me like you have a whole lot of fear of dissappointing your SO. Doesn't she understand that (a) your intentions were/are noble (to save the "right" way and buy a home, and (b) even if you're renting now, that doesn't make you a loser as a husband? And what's up with hoping she meets someone with a condo who sweeps her off her feet? Is that Mr. suave FB? I mean, if you're truly hoping for that, you guys have serious issues beyond whether or not you're renting or "owning."

Again, sorry if that's too intrusive.

It is happening. I just do not want everyone to be too excited over the coming correction. It will come. We should be smiling. But we will save the laugh for later.

So you patrick.netters were hoping for a ~45% cut in RE prices within a short span of time (a year?)? When in the history of RE has that ever happened? Past history suggests more like a 6 year span.

HARM,

Quibble if you must, but I save a good chunk each month with two kids and a wife on a lot less than $200K. How do I do it? I rent (and eat in - see PP reply above).

Red Whine,

Yeah I hear you. You didn't bet on black and let it ride for 5 years, so you're the fool at the table with your original chips in your hand. Your inlaws may start changing your tune. I've been the bubble lunatic at the family gatherings for the past 3 years but at our last gathering, the smartest of the extended inlaws admitted there was a rocky road ahead for real estate. It's a 10-12 year full cycle so be patient and don't blow that nest egg.

Randy mentioned that all of the gold bugs who were crowing about their investment strategy a month back have disappeared or shut up. There's a similar quiet thats falling over the real estate boffins. Worst case, you spend an extra $25K and buy a house twice as nice as the POS you would have bought last July. Give it a year.

>>Seriously, why don’t we make fun of sellers more and forget about the realtors?

It's all in the the symbolism.

>>I think what gets me about all the pessimism is that everyone is so annoyed they can’t see the crash happening in real time, in front of their eyes with the smoking ruin of everyone’s equity on the ground for all of us to gawk at.

That's how it always is. It's not a crash until it's over.

c’mon man, your constant posts moaning ...

Red Whine must whine.

>>And what’s up with hoping she meets someone with a condo who sweeps her off her feet?

I read that as a poignant admission of having let her down, not a relationship problem. I thought it was very well written and touching.

Marinite,

Oh, I don't think anyone was expecting a 45% crash in one year. Some people (including me) would very much like to see this happen, but I doubt anyone as counting on it.

I think a 60% crash over the next several years is very much in the cards, I just don't know how long it will take. Four years? Seven? Wish I knew.

Requiem,

People will always spend their income ... and they’re spending anything that isn’t going into the house.

That’s just my perception, of course, and I’m sure there are many who don’t fit the model, but I’d be surprised if it didn’t describe at least 80% of the FBs out there.

The data support your perception:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.htm

ARM rates are now 2% above their 2003 low. What do you think Bernanke's Summer Hikes will do to these FBs?

Michael Anderson Says:

I read that as a poignant admission of having let her down, not a relationship problem. I thought it was very well written and touching.

I wasn't trying to make fun of RW. I was just saying in less eloquent fashion than SP that it speaks to an issue that should be brought up between the two. Now before we all start sounding like a Dr. Phil board, I'll shut up, let out a belch and adjust my nads. How 'bout them Mavs?

Most of the ARMS resets are supposed to be starting in 2008. That is also an election year. So here is my conspiracy theory.

Although BB has impressed me lately, I am still in 2 minds about him. Maybe Fed will raise rates once in a while, keep talking tough on inflation till middle/end of 2007. Then there will be enough data showing slowing economy. At that point they will use that as an argument to reduce interest rates once again. In the name of "giving a shot in the arm" to economy, but in reality to save FBs in the election year.

Currently, they also want to manage the FED image and "expectations" about the inflation. Come 2008, they will ignore inflation. If they won't there will be enough political pressure on them to do so.

It may be too late by then. But the "injection of liquidity" will slow down the speed of crisis once again, and build massive inflationary pressures.

I am not a gold bug. Although I do have some long positions in metals and commodities.

Thanks…after all …he is our ceasar.

Give me my salad, our ceasar!

TBAONTBA

In the name of “giving a shot in the arm” to economy, but in reality to save FBs in the election year.

Full disclosure - I'm a Democrat and occasionally put on a tin foil hat to learn what the other side is doing to the country.

That being said, I'm pretty sure Ben Bernanke is apolitical and is truly interested in inflation targeting as a guiding principle. My favorite economist and the darling of the left, Paul Krugman worked with Bernanke at Princeton. When Bernanke was appointed, Krugman remarked that Bernanke's Republican views were extremely mild and that Bush had made an excellent appointment. That's probably the only time that Krugman has had a positive thing to say about the administration over the past 6 years.

Bernanke may inject liquidity as you fortell, but it will be because we're diving into a nasty recession and not to bail out the FBs. Preventing a massive recession will indeed help the party in power, but it's also for the good of the nation.

tsusiat :

Why blame sellers ? We live in a capitalist economy. Seller has every right to ask as much as he or she wants. Sellers were never the problem.

The buyers are the ONLY ones to blame for this madness. They were the ones trying to outbid each other and pay OVER what the seller was asking. It was their money. They were primarily responsible for it.

If and when we can prove in court of law that bankers, agents et al lied, broke law, behaved unethically enough to cause a legal punishment, then let's start blaming them. We might see some of that as well.

This whole mess is purely due to buyers. Our lives have been forever affected in an adverse way by these people who are willing to pay anything for anything. No mercy on them.

Apart from that, the only one I blame is His Highness Sir Alan Greenspan, the most honorable one.

Why blame sellers ? We live in a capitalist economy. Seller has every right to ask as much as he or she wants. Sellers were never the problem.

The buyers are the ONLY ones to blame for this madness. They were the ones trying to outbid each other and pay OVER what the seller was asking. It was their money. They were primarily responsible for it.

Why blame anyone? It just happens. We are here to predict the future. Let somebody else assign blame and we will just sit and be entertained.

Why blame anyone? It just happens.

Bubbles come and go throughout history, this is true. However, rarely has a Central bank and so-called "regulators" ever had such a free hand in creating one and helping it to grow beyond all reason.

Whatever happened to so-called "fiscal responsibility", i.e., taking away the punchbowl when the party gets out of control?

FRIFY,

I hope you are right. I subscribe to Barrons, and in their economic round table, there was at least one analyst who said, BB is true to his words. He claimed to have met BB recently and according to him, BB will just act according to the data. I desperately want to believe, but the previous maestro has put enough distrust in me about the Fed.

I am not sure if the liquidity will solve the problem. I have read enough arguments about Paul Volker doing the exact opposite, and choosing to not avoid the recession and rather break the inflation. That according to the arguments, was better for the economy in the long term.

I find those arguments more logical. Hence my dislike for The Fulcrum Of The Modern Economic Paradigm - the one and only Sir Alan Greenspan.

To BA Or Not To BA:

This "mess" is an economic situation. As such, it's a description of a particular system state that requires certain actions on the part of buyers and lenders to occur. Unless we are making judgments about the moral responsibilities of all parties to the state of the economy, the only people to blame are the buyers who get shafted. The ones who get out with a profit can be counted "lucky", or a similarly appropriate adjective.

If we are making such judgments, then we have to reserve a Special Place for those who know their actions are harmful, then another ring for those who got played. I think the FBs mostly fit in the second category, and the lenders, etc. in the first.

However, rarely has a Central bank and so-called “regulators” ever had such a free hand in creating one and helping it to grow beyond all reason.

Central bank defends the interest of banks. Regulators are reactive, not proactive. This is just the nature of things.

My friend, we will be vindicated. ;)